Translate Google :
Hello Esgici:
I think there would be no problems, only some case you change some function of Harbour and this generates
an error; honestly do not probe or try to copy the folders / bin / lib and / Include their respective places in HMG.
later try to not flood the boat: lol:

In another forum one user said Harbour in HMG folder is not the same, not like as original one. Saying:

But surely it is not the official version.
Have left (my source code) standard to compile with / w3 / s2, and was ok in Harbour 3.0.
In Harbour HMG showed a 5 static functions that were not more in use.
If (compilation) done differently, then it is different.

Although I have stated that the Harbour is the same as the original version. He replied with:

The problem was not Harbour, although different from the official. The visible difference was this compiler detects static functions discarded

What is the meaning with that ? Is Harbour diferent version in HMG folder ? Or is wrongly considering our compile way which HMG sets with its environment as amended version of Harbour ? I do not understand why he says HMG´s Harbour is different as oficial one. Some one could explain it ?

HMGing a better world"Matter tells space how to curve, space tells matter how to move."Albert Einstein

The Harbour compiler performs the same function as CLIPPER.EXE (MR).
It has the advantage that it can generate C language code, making it compatible with virtually thousands of libraries and programs.
Work is the option to generate executables for each of the platforms.

Executable larger
One of the disadvantages is that MinGW executables are generated larger size than those generated by other compilers. This occurs when you include the header files for C + + standards (for example, # include <iostream>), and because the compiler links all libraries within the executable statically.